Super impressive app + waitlists = Game theory? Is my hypothesis correct?

[Narmerguy]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Totally taking my quote out of context.🙄 I earlier reemphasized that I am not suggesting that the interview is a be all end all thing.
However, if they are interviewing you, it means that they would be interested in you attending. Why on earth would anyone interview you if they were going to waitlist from the beginning anyway?
That makes utterly no sense.

However, data from the interview is used to remove people that do not qualify.

Get the drift? Just because you do not meet the NO ACCEPT bin, doesnt mean you meet the ACCEPT pile...

Gosh.

Actually no, I was not taking your post out of context. Clearly getting an interview isn't the end all be all. However, you clearly were indicating that interviews only go out to seriously considered applicants or however you phrased it. That is not always the case. Or, better put, the term "serious" can be used very loosely. This is plainly evidenced by how many people that receive interviews still get outright rejected.

Schools are different. Some schools will interview applicants that look like weak applicants because the interview can add different layers and a different perspective to the applicant. Some of them only interview people they'd be ready to accept already. Everything isn't as black and white as you seem to like them to be.

 

[bannie22]

Actually no, I was not taking your post out of context. Clearly getting an interview isn't the end all be all. However, you clearly were indicating that interviews only go out to seriously considered applicants or however you phrased it. That is not always the case. Or, better put, the term "serious" can be used very loosely. This is plainly evidenced by how many people that receive interviews still get outright rejected.

Schools are different. Some schools will interview applicants that look like weak applicants because the interview can add different layers and a different perspective to the applicant. Some of them only interview people they'd be ready to accept already. Everything isn't as black and white as you seem to like them to be.

Not many people receive outright rejections after going to an interview.
Most people are deferred till March when final decisions are made.
The few lucky ones that get rejected outright are those that like I said, do not fit at all.

Even schools with very very low post-interview acceptance rate do not waste their resources on a student they have no interest in accepting at all.

They have thousands of applicants, and can easily bring someone else into the fray, or just spend their time doing research and getting more NIH money. 👍

 

[Musclemass]

Not many people receive outright rejections after going to an interview.
Most people are deferred till March when final decisions are made.
The few lucky ones that get rejected outright are those that like I said, do not fit at all.

Even schools with very very low post-interview acceptance rate do not waste their resources on a student they have no interest in accepting at all.

They have thousands of applicants, and can easily bring someone else into the fray, or just spend their time doing research and getting more NIH money. 👍

I'm with Narmerguy. Your succession of comments serve to suggest that you don't seem to understand the process. It's nuanced, imprecise, highly subjective, seemingly random in outcome at times and very different from school to school. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.